Date: 9/22/97 1:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Zaradda
Grand Masters gather peer wins to use when finally acheiving Warlord?
Just an idea for the rules thingie.
Rad
A new idea to kick around.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/22/97 3:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: SirCetran
MsgId:
Aye, I would have to agree with Draven on this thought. Being a Warlord mean that you are given all of the special previledges of obtaining the Rank.
However, Warlords are able to obtain Peer Wins by defeating Baron's and the Overlord, a higher Rank than Warlord's are.
On the other side of that, however, since when were Grand Master's able to make Challenge?
~^~Damien~^~
From: SirCetran
MsgId:
Aye, I would have to agree with Draven on this thought. Being a Warlord mean that you are given all of the special previledges of obtaining the Rank.
However, Warlords are able to obtain Peer Wins by defeating Baron's and the Overlord, a higher Rank than Warlord's are.
On the other side of that, however, since when were Grand Master's able to make Challenge?
~^~Damien~^~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/22/97 6:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: IainMacKnz
The idea has merit.
However, I would suggest the following additional changes, in order to retain balance in the rings, if this idea is implemented:
1) Allow *all* duelers, of any rank, to count victories against Warlords and above. The argument to this, of course, is that a dueler who arrives as a commoner can then duel only Warlords, and if they are skillful, be able to challenge immediately upon gaining the rank. My answer to that, of course, is that if someone is capable of that feat, then they deserve the right to challenge immediately, for such skill is rare, indeed.
2) However, that being the case, it should be harder to achieve the rank, if only to reduce the incidence of challenges coming from duelers with "sub-par" records. Increase the Warlord qualification to twenty, rather than fifteen; those current Warlords between fifteen and twenty could be grandfathered, rather than being stripped of a rank they worked in good faith to attain.
3) The penalty for gaining, then losing, the rank of Warlord would still be the loss of all previously accumulated peer wins.
Just some thoughts.
Iain MacKenzie,
Prince Consort, New Mountainside,
Lord Tynsdale,
Warlord and Thrice-Baron.
From: IainMacKnz
The idea has merit.
However, I would suggest the following additional changes, in order to retain balance in the rings, if this idea is implemented:
1) Allow *all* duelers, of any rank, to count victories against Warlords and above. The argument to this, of course, is that a dueler who arrives as a commoner can then duel only Warlords, and if they are skillful, be able to challenge immediately upon gaining the rank. My answer to that, of course, is that if someone is capable of that feat, then they deserve the right to challenge immediately, for such skill is rare, indeed.
2) However, that being the case, it should be harder to achieve the rank, if only to reduce the incidence of challenges coming from duelers with "sub-par" records. Increase the Warlord qualification to twenty, rather than fifteen; those current Warlords between fifteen and twenty could be grandfathered, rather than being stripped of a rank they worked in good faith to attain.
3) The penalty for gaining, then losing, the rank of Warlord would still be the loss of all previously accumulated peer wins.
Just some thoughts.
Iain MacKenzie,
Prince Consort, New Mountainside,
Lord Tynsdale,
Warlord and Thrice-Baron.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/22/97 6:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Drakewynx
I'm glad to see that at least one person believes in grandfathering the currently exsisting WarLords. While I was at 20 WoL when I entered this weekend, the foolishness of attempting to duel while in my seventh month of pregnancy has dropped me a bit. Further, I will be sitting out the next few weekends until I feel ready again.
I only have one problem with the idea of non-Warlords being allowed to collect peer-wins. This will encourage the practice of "Sand-bagging", a thing I personally despise. If you don't know what "Sand-bagging" is, then contact me, I'll be glad to inform you.
Drake.
From: Drakewynx
I'm glad to see that at least one person believes in grandfathering the currently exsisting WarLords. While I was at 20 WoL when I entered this weekend, the foolishness of attempting to duel while in my seventh month of pregnancy has dropped me a bit. Further, I will be sitting out the next few weekends until I feel ready again.
I only have one problem with the idea of non-Warlords being allowed to collect peer-wins. This will encourage the practice of "Sand-bagging", a thing I personally despise. If you don't know what "Sand-bagging" is, then contact me, I'll be glad to inform you.
Drake.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/22/97 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: RixFavre
Wait . . .
Took me way too long to reach Warlord so I could enjoy privledges of the rank. The fancies are nice, and now I can finally get some peer wins and try for Baron.
I've been every rank below Baron for at least two weeks minimum, and I spent most my time dueling Warlords. I could beat them sometimes, sure, but wasn't near as consistent as now. I guess my point is, if Commoners earn ten peer wins in thirty tries, what are the consequences for it? Any Warlord who was ten of thirty would most likely lose rank.
If lower ranks earning peer wins is to be considered, there must also be consequences. Warlords must maintain a rank to keep their wins, what would a commoner have to do to keep theirs? The only answer I see is that, if at the end of the cycle a commoner is at negative wins over losses, they lose all accumulated peer wins as their record is essentially erased.
Just a few thoughts, but I still don't like the idea.
~Rix
From: RixFavre
Wait . . .
Took me way too long to reach Warlord so I could enjoy privledges of the rank. The fancies are nice, and now I can finally get some peer wins and try for Baron.
I've been every rank below Baron for at least two weeks minimum, and I spent most my time dueling Warlords. I could beat them sometimes, sure, but wasn't near as consistent as now. I guess my point is, if Commoners earn ten peer wins in thirty tries, what are the consequences for it? Any Warlord who was ten of thirty would most likely lose rank.
If lower ranks earning peer wins is to be considered, there must also be consequences. Warlords must maintain a rank to keep their wins, what would a commoner have to do to keep theirs? The only answer I see is that, if at the end of the cycle a commoner is at negative wins over losses, they lose all accumulated peer wins as their record is essentially erased.
Just a few thoughts, but I still don't like the idea.
~Rix
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/22/97 8:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: IainMacKnz
Rix~
A good thought, regarding commoners with negative records. I'd go further, and say that any loss in rank results in forfeiture - and note that it's not very difficult for a Master-at-Arms to find themselves losing rank by dueling Warlords.
~irm
From: IainMacKnz
Rix~
A good thought, regarding commoners with negative records. I'd go further, and say that any loss in rank results in forfeiture - and note that it's not very difficult for a Master-at-Arms to find themselves losing rank by dueling Warlords.
~irm
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/22/97 11:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BadgerAx
::Looks at the post and throws up his hands. Grabs a pad of the magic paper that is always floating about in the room and scribbles away on it madly::
What a good Idea....give some of the lower ranks somthing for their effort....
Now why didn't I think of somthing like that?????
Perhaps make their Duels count for somthing???
Somthing more than climbing up the ranks?
::Mad Laughter rings through the hall::
::His eyes bulge out as the men in white take him away::
::All the time he screams::I told you. I told you all. Muh Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!
::He grows quiet as the medication takes effect::
All kidding aside, I don't like the idea of People under W/L accumulating peer wins. If you think there are too many challenges now, just wait.
I would prefer to see only people who spend enough time in the DoS to become a W/L, have the chance to accumlate Peer wins. Remember there is also RP involved here.I like to see people work hard to become a W/L, so that when they do they will not only have good dueling ability, but also a backround to use for RP. I think the extra time a W/L spends accumlating Peer wins for that first challenge, gives her/him credibility, and an appreaciation of how hard the current Barons/Overlords worked to get there.
This can only be a good thing.
A GM or M@A that suddenly makes W/L then is able to immediately challenges a baron for a ring because she/he "Accuumulated" Peer wins, will make for challenges by people, NOT unworthy, but unknown as far as the RP side of DoS is concerned.
Anyway if Ya do decide to do somthing like this let me know....::Grins:: I already have 1 baron and 2 W/L wins...... I think this demonstrates my point perfectly...
Badger.
From: BadgerAx
::Looks at the post and throws up his hands. Grabs a pad of the magic paper that is always floating about in the room and scribbles away on it madly::
What a good Idea....give some of the lower ranks somthing for their effort....
Now why didn't I think of somthing like that?????
Perhaps make their Duels count for somthing???
Somthing more than climbing up the ranks?
::Mad Laughter rings through the hall::
::His eyes bulge out as the men in white take him away::
::All the time he screams::I told you. I told you all. Muh Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!
::He grows quiet as the medication takes effect::
All kidding aside, I don't like the idea of People under W/L accumulating peer wins. If you think there are too many challenges now, just wait.
I would prefer to see only people who spend enough time in the DoS to become a W/L, have the chance to accumlate Peer wins. Remember there is also RP involved here.I like to see people work hard to become a W/L, so that when they do they will not only have good dueling ability, but also a backround to use for RP. I think the extra time a W/L spends accumlating Peer wins for that first challenge, gives her/him credibility, and an appreaciation of how hard the current Barons/Overlords worked to get there.
This can only be a good thing.
A GM or M@A that suddenly makes W/L then is able to immediately challenges a baron for a ring because she/he "Accuumulated" Peer wins, will make for challenges by people, NOT unworthy, but unknown as far as the RP side of DoS is concerned.
Anyway if Ya do decide to do somthing like this let me know....::Grins:: I already have 1 baron and 2 W/L wins...... I think this demonstrates my point perfectly...
Badger.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
Date: 9/23/97 4:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: Brigath
>>I would prefer to see only people who spend enough time in the DoS to become a W/L, have the chance to accumlate Peer wins<<
::chuckles:: You're assuming that it's not still going to take a while to become a WL, Badger
After 4 years of being a commoner (including a leave of absence) I can attest to the fact that it can still take plenty of time just to get to Warlord and use those peer wins. Granted, I am an extreme case, and I know that some people have made it to Warlord in just one weekend, but I doubt that those who made it in a weekend deuled only, or even mostly, Warlords either.
Here's another possible idea (not that the Peer Wins is bad, just something else to stir the pot ) What if a win over a Warlord by a lower rank counted for 2 wins? The lower rank would be rewarded for taking on a recognized leader of the sport, but would still have to gather peer wins once they made it to the top.
If either of these went into place (but especially the 2 wins for one victory), I bet it would become much harder for a lower rank to beat a Warlord. I know that often when I duel a Warlord, they rarely use their full quota of fancies, as a courtesy to my lower rank. But if that lower rank is going to get a greater benefit from beating them, that practice would probably stop, as well it should. If lower ranks want a bonus for beating a Warlord, they should be prepared to take on that Warlord and all
of the fancies that come with it. (They should be prepared for that anyway, even as things stand now, but I hope you see my point)
I don't think things necessarily need changing, but just thought I would throw in my two schillings.
Brig
From: Brigath
>>I would prefer to see only people who spend enough time in the DoS to become a W/L, have the chance to accumlate Peer wins<<
::chuckles:: You're assuming that it's not still going to take a while to become a WL, Badger
After 4 years of being a commoner (including a leave of absence) I can attest to the fact that it can still take plenty of time just to get to Warlord and use those peer wins. Granted, I am an extreme case, and I know that some people have made it to Warlord in just one weekend, but I doubt that those who made it in a weekend deuled only, or even mostly, Warlords either.Here's another possible idea (not that the Peer Wins is bad, just something else to stir the pot
) What if a win over a Warlord by a lower rank counted for 2 wins? The lower rank would be rewarded for taking on a recognized leader of the sport, but would still have to gather peer wins once they made it to the top.If either of these went into place (but especially the 2 wins for one victory), I bet it would become much harder for a lower rank to beat a Warlord. I know that often when I duel a Warlord, they rarely use their full quota of fancies, as a courtesy to my lower rank. But if that lower rank is going to get a greater benefit from beating them, that practice would probably stop, as well it should. If lower ranks want a bonus for beating a Warlord, they should be prepared to take on that Warlord and all
of the fancies that come with it. (They should be prepared for that anyway, even as things stand now, but I hope you see my point)
I don't think things necessarily need changing, but just thought I would throw in my two schillings.
Brig